Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

AIBU to think self employed people should be exempt from Jury Service?

189 replies

Petal02 · 07/07/2015 14:33

Yes, I know everyone should do their civic duty but ….

DH is self-employed, and the winter months are his busiest season. He was originally asked to do Jury Service in November, but requested a deferral on the grounds that two weeks out during his peak season would be a disaster for a sole trader. The ‘compensation for lost earnings’ is just over £60 per day (or £32 if you’re only needed for a half day) for a two week jury service period, which is way, way short of DH’s usual earnings. And whichever time of year he was called, we knew he was going to take a fairly significant hit, financially.

Thankfully a deferral was granted, and he was given a revised start date of Monday 6 July.

So ……. DH obviously didn’t accept any work for the period w/c 6 July or w/c 13 July (even though he planned to try and fit a few small jobs in). On the afternoon of Friday 3 July he got a phone call saying he wouldn’t be needed on Monday 6th, and that he was to phone up after 5pm on Monday 6th, to see if he would be needed for Tuesday 7th. The Court Officer went on to say that it was likely he may not have to attend at all, but he had to stay on standby for the two week period, phoning up after 5pm each day, to enquire about the following day. Which is just a joke for a self-employed person.

As it turned out, when he phoned on Monday night, he was then stood down for his entire period of jury service. But in the meantime he’d turned down a lot of work, and even though he’s now able to accept jobs again for the coming fortnight, we’ve made quite a loss and I’m really not happy.

I don’t think the self-employed should have to do this. DH had to work really hard to pull a small business through the recession, and jury service has been unhelpful.

OP posts:
LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett · 07/07/2015 17:22

What would you do if you were sick?

I work through it. Genuinely. I can't risk my clients finding someone else.

Also wrt to getting an exemption 'on the day' - there were loads of ppl in my jury pool asking for exemptions and the Clerk told me it wouldn't be granted (and I was actually asking for child care reasons as DH was away, not loss of earning reasons.)

woolymum · 07/07/2015 17:23

the system isn't perfect but to exclude se people? no.
we have the opportunity to defer and we have the opportunity to explain that jury service would be impossible do to work or childcare or health etc.
the previous night is fairly lousy notice, but there are options (for some at least) to discuss potential work with clients to either delay or fit in if and when a cancellation day happens. yes, that doesn't suit all but we get to have a jury service with a jury of peers or as close as dammit.

what is the alternative option? to only have juries comprised of bored rich cheshire housewives or sloane rangers?

Toughasoldboots · 07/07/2015 17:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tabulahrasa · 07/07/2015 17:26

"In that case girlandboy, if you could prove it, your DH would be exempt. They are not going to force people into jury service if 2 weeks off work means they will lose their livelihood forever. I imagine the number of people that is true for is fairly small."

It's proving it that's the hard bit, a large part of DP's business is emergency call outs which have to be within 4 hours or he'd lose the customer. That didn't count as reason to defer to a quieter time of year or for an exemption.

LurkingHusband · 07/07/2015 17:29

what is the alternative option? to only have juries comprised of bored rich cheshire housewives or sloane rangers?

bear in mind you don't have to go far (i.e. not even off Mumsnet) to find a plethora of stories discussing various deficiencies in UK justice. Poor conviction rates for certain offences. More serious charges being dropped for lesser charges (and punishments). And the odd inexplicable acquittal/guilty verdict.

But, as I said upthread. We're obviously happy with cut price justice at the coal face, since this has been a talking point since my DM did jury service in 1980. Even she noticed how few people in her pool had full time jobs.

annielouise · 07/07/2015 17:29

What an exaggeration woolymum. Taking out self-employed from the pool of people suitable to do jury service doesn't just leave bored, rich Cheshire housewives and Sloane Rangers! Bizarre! There's plenty of people in the pool to represent a cross-section. I'm sure some self-employed people could do it as well.

Take my work - I have to do it when asked, not when I can fit it in. I wouldn't be able to defer clients' work so I'd lose that work. And whoever they got to do it might do a good enough job to replace me. If we're exaggerating, technically it might mean I end up on benefits because of it. What's the point of that?!

OnlyLovers · 07/07/2015 17:31

I don't think the system would work if only people with nothing better to do served on juries.

I agree with this. And I speak as someone who's self-employed and can really not afford to turn down work. It's unfortunate but jury service is bad for a lot of people.

I do always put aside a good chunk of my earnings in savings, just in case; I think that's only sensible.

BitOutOfPractice · 07/07/2015 17:35

I'm self employed too and I also dread being called financially although I would love to do it in theory if you see what I mean.

The problem with excluding SE people is that juries would no longer be a true representation of the population would it? No plumbers or PR people or writers or child minders...

Bonsoir · 07/07/2015 17:37

Trial by jury should be abolished. It's a scandal.

annielouise · 07/07/2015 17:39

I don't think there should be a blanket exclusion of self-employed but it definitely warrants looking at on a case by case basis. That's not unreasonable. Plumbers might have the odd regular client but usually have new clients, writers can write in the evening in some cases. Child minders - I'm sure the parents would have to take a holiday then - that or change child minder which if their child is happy they're unlikely to do. It depends on the circumstances.

girlandboy · 07/07/2015 17:39

Savings are all well and good to cover lost earnings, but they don't cover lost customers.

woolymum · 07/07/2015 17:51

annielouise
if you start exempting se people can you say hand on heart that there are absolutely no other category of people who would also want mass exception? and you would ignore there pleas - so they are less worthy??

OnlyLovers · 07/07/2015 17:52

girl, no, but a lot of self-employed people including me deliberately cast their net as wide as possible in order to develop a wide client base, to try to ameliorate issues like this.

I'm not saying it's fine and dandy for a self-employed person to be called up, dicked about, and lose income over it. But I can't see another way of doing it within the current system; how could the courts or whoever look at one self-employed person and decide they were more 'deserving' of being let off than another? What would be the criteria? Anyone could argue that they must absolutely not lose jobs or clients; who decides who is the most deserving?

BitOutOfPractice · 07/07/2015 17:53

annielouise are you SE? If you are employed would you be happy / able to afford to take two weeks unpaid to do Jury Service? After all, you could use your savings to live. Or do your job in the evening when you get out of court Hmm

princesssofiasmum · 07/07/2015 17:54

Does it really need to be an either/or situation? Obviously if you are a painter, builder, run a shop or something with fixed hours it is. but if you are self employed with a home office it should be doable to keep up with some work. Court is often out by 3pm if not lunchtime. Much of it is waiting around and you are allowed to be on phones, blackberries etc. I would think for a short period of time most people would just push through and work from 4/5pm through til midnight or so. I have known people who are employed who have done their day job remotely as well as jury service

annielouise · 07/07/2015 17:59

wooly - what other group of people would need mass exemption? It's not clear what you're saying. Individual circumstances need looking at on a case by case basis. That's obvious. A carer of a person that can't be left alone for a minute shouldn't have to do it and probably wouldn't have to anyway. That doesn't mean every carer should be exempt. Individual cases need looking at.

Bitoutofpractice - have you not read the thread? If you had you'd realise it's clear I'm self-employed. And I also said in one post that yes if I went to full time employment I'd be happy to do it. Read the thread. Regardless, the jobs I'd do as full time employee would pay for this so no I wouldn't have to live off savings to do it. As I also said in one post, which you obviously haven't read, I can't do my job when it suits me. I have to fit in with clients. FFS.

annielouise · 07/07/2015 18:01

No, princess in my line of work 90% needs doing then and there whatever time it comes in. Larger jobs I can delay a day or two and fit in when it suits me. But then I couldn't fit in all large jobs in the time left. Self-employed is not homogenised in terms of what you do or the hours you need to be available for work. My work is time sensitive so I need to be there when I need to be there, not after 3pm. My busy times are 6am to 2pm.

BitOutOfPractice · 07/07/2015 18:03

FFS yourself annie FFS!

I'm sorry I missed the details of your life. I confess to skim reading the thread and missing some of your pearls of wisdom FFS!

deriant · 07/07/2015 18:06

Lots of work isn't office based though.

annielouise · 07/07/2015 18:09

Yes, Bit, FFS. If you're going to comment and pass judgement get your fucking facts straight Hmm. It's not too much to ask. I'm not saying I've got pearls of wisdom but I'm not working off one bloody brain cell.

BitOutOfPractice · 07/07/2015 18:15

I thinkyour last two posts are the most patronising and condescending I have ever had dircted at me on my entire time on online fora so well done for that annie. Congratulations.

I did not pass judgement. I asked a question. FFS. It was met with swearing and condescension.

MNHQ
TheOnlyOliviaMumsnet · 07/07/2015 18:21

Good evening all

A reminder of our talk guidelines
A bit of peace, love and civic duty all round

Thanks ever so

annielouise · 07/07/2015 18:21

oh dear, oh well. Teach you to read the thread next time before commenting.

You did pass judgement with the "After all, you could use your savings to live. Or do your job in the evening when you get out of court Hmm". What was with the Hmm face then? Disbelief that what I've been saying is the truth and that my life and that of my child's would be massively affected by having to do jury service, that's what. How many times have I said I can't do my work in the evening. But that's right you didn't read the thread so didn't know that - so why comment directly to me if you don't now any of my details? As if my details are minor little things and not the whole basis for my arguing these cases need looking at on a case by case basis.

So you were met with a mild FFS, which was irritation at the complete nonsense you wrote, not having read anything I'd put, and felt you had to reciprocate with two FFS's yourself Grin Ironic.

BitOutOfPractice · 07/07/2015 18:25

The FFSs were in response to your FFSs FFS! (FFS sounds weird now I've typed it so often!)

The Hmm was an indication that to "use your savings to live. Or do your job in the evening when you get out of court" is hardly an ideal scenario. You took that to be a judgement of you but I have no idea why.

Hey ho! I'll leave (with my one brain cell!) you to it!

And yes, I am cross!

Egosumquisum · 07/07/2015 18:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.